Agenda and minutes

Councillors Driver and Jeffries.

14/00227/FUL 9 Eldorado Crescent

Councillors Hall and Seacome – personal and prejudicial – the neighbour is well-known to them.  Will both leave the Chamber during this item.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 24^th April 2014 be approved and signed as a correct record with the following correction:  

Page 7, 3^rd paragraph from bottom of page:

PT: …If it was already a shop when the houses on either side were built, that puts a different complexion on it, but if it because became a shop afterwards …

Councillors Seacome and Hall declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application and left the Chamber for the duration of this debate

MP introduced the application as above, adding that the existing garage is in an unusual location across the road from the house to which it belongs.  The garage is constructed of pre-cast concrete panels and an asbestos roof, and has no architectural merit.  The proposed garage will be brick-faced, with slate roof and timber doors, and will have a similar footprint to the existing garage, although it will be a larger building.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Driver due to concerns from the neighbours that windows in the side elevation will allow overlooking.

Public Speaking:

There was none, although the applicant had sent a letter in lieu of speaking at the meeting, and Members were given the opportunity to read this.

Member debate:

PT:  has two questions concerning the windows:  has a light test been carried out, and do they open or not?

RG:  made the point that two Members of his group have declared a personal and prejudicial interest because they know the objectors, but with names redacted from letters of representation, he cannot say whether or not he knows them himself.  One of the letters of objection quotes a former CBC planning officer’s comment that nothing should be constructed on this site, and his recommendation to refuse a previous, similar application.  It would be useful to know more about the history of this site.

JF:  notes the neighbours’ comment that the proposed building would be ‘ripe for conversion’ into a separate dwelling by the existing or future residents.  Can a condition be added to ensure that the permission applies only to the current owners to prevent this from happening?

LG:  this is partially covered by Condition 6, but maybe this can be strengthened.  Notes that that applicant has addressed these concerns in the final paragraph of his letter to Members on the blue update, but is worried about the term ‘ancillary’ in Condition 6.  Ancillary uses to residential use could cover a number of things which neighbours may well not want to put up with, such as loud music or workshop noise. Would like to see the condition strengthened.

MP, in response:

-          to PT, confirmed that light tests have been carried out on windows in the neighbouring property – they would not be done on the proposed windows – and also confirmed that the windows open outwards – they are Velux rooflights;

-          regarding the previous application, this was on a different, neighbouring site, and involved an extension to a property – there were very few similarities with the current proposal;

-          to JF and LG, Condition  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

MJC introduced the proposal for a side extension in the Cudnall Street Conservation Area, at Committee at the request of the Parish Council, due to insufficient detail provided and concerns about the effect on neighbouring amenity.  Officers recommend approval.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

15 in support - unanimous

PERMIT

MJC explained to Members that planning permission is required for this application for landscaping in the grounds of Avenue Lodge because a large amount of earth will need to be brought onto the site, making it more of an engineering operation and beyond normal garden landscaping.  It is at Committee because of the Parish Council’s concerns about flooding issues, and at the request of Councillor Whyborn.  The Officer recommendation is to approve.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Limbrick, applicant, in support

The main purpose of this application is to allow the owners to continue to improve and enjoy the garden of Avenue Lodge.  CBC considers the proposal to infill part of the pond to be an engineering operation, which is why the applicants are required to seek planning permission.  There is professional advice from CBC’s drainage engineer in the report, which states that infilling the pond will not increase the flood risk on the site or the surrounding land, and also that groundwater levels will balance out in time.  The Environment Agency agrees with these comments.  At Paragraph 1.3.6 of the report, professional advice is clear that the pond has no flood storage capacity and infilling will therefore not exacerbate any flood risk.  This is a comprehensive design to transform the garden at Avenue Lodge, increase its amenity value, and bring the garden into full use.  With no objection from professional consultees and the officer recommendation to permit, there is no valid reason for this application not to be approved.

Councillor Whyborn, in support

The report refers to a number of other applications at this property, but as Members know, each application must be looked at on its own merits.  Having received representations from the applicant and from various objectors, realised that this is a controversial application there is a lot of high feeling, but on the other hand, planning permission isn’t usually required for landscaping a garden – it is needed here for filling in the pond.   There is a lot of anecdotal evidence from various neighbours, which needs to be taken seriously, but the clear guidance from officers is that the risk of flooding will not increase with the infill of the pond.  Members have seen pictures of flooding in the area, but there are many reasons for this.  These concerns are obviously very important for neighbours but a red herring in planning terms.  Officer advice is unequivocal, and Members should follow this.

(Councillor Coleman allowed Members time to read the blue update.)

Member debate:

PT:  has a question for the Legal officer.  It’s clear that the pond is well-established but officers can’t say how deep it is.  Having been in two local properties and seen pictures of water coming under the fence and into their gardens, is very worried by this.  If  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

6.  Any other items

CC:  there is no other business, but this is the last Planning Committee for two long-standing Members who are not seeking re-election – Barbara Driver and Les Godwin.  As Councillor Driver is not present, CC intends to write from the Chair to express thanks for the many years of loyal service given to Planning Committee.   To LG, offers thanks for all the years of effort as a member of Planning Committee.  It is clear to all that he has been very diligent in his role as planning councillor, always well-prepared for meetings, having read the reports thoroughly, and offering wise and thoughtful contributions to the debates.  Has not always agreed with LG’s views, but these have always been important, reliable, valuable, and made with the interests of the borough and its residents at heart.  Wishes LG a happy retirement from the Council and all the best for the future.

RG:  to add his own thanks to this, notes that LG has been working to the last on a land drainage scheme in Prestbury.  He has been a Member of some prestige, with contacts in London, and valued experience and knowledge, and will be much missed.

The meeting ended at 7.35pm.